And was the holy Lamb of God, On Englands pleasant pastures seen!- And did those feet, William Blake

fredag 8. november 2013

Harold Godwinson's Posthumous Reputation, 1066-c.1160

The following is based on a lecture I gave to the student organisation for history students at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology earlier this autumn. The translations of passages are all from the editors of the works cited, and the pictures are all from wikimedia.

Introduction

When William Bastard, duke of Normandy,
invaded England in 1066 he was very concerned that this would have
the bearings of an enterprise that was legitimate according to
contemporary norms. After William had been crowned at Westminster
Abbey on Christmas Eve that same year, he made severe efforts to
persuade the surviving high-born members of Anglo-Saxon society that
he truly was the king of England, and that he was the true deserving
subject of their loyalty. As a part in this campaign the writing of
history was an important tool, and various Norman and Anglo-Norman
chronicles were to argue that William's invasion was not a
usurpation, but, quite the contrary, an expedition to rid England of
the usurper Harold Godwinson. This text will show in which ways
Harold's posthumous reputation was constructed to cement the Norman
claim to legitimacy and how this legacy lasted well beyond William
the Conqueror's death.

Harold Godwinson in the Bayeux Tapestry

Note the moustaches

Background - Harold Godwinson

Harold
Godwinson was born early in the 1020s. His father was one of the most
powerful nobles of the Danish empire, and his mother belonged to
another Danish house of nobles. During the reign of King Edward the
Confessor, the house of Godwin was among the greatest political
dynasties in Anglo-Saxon England, and Godwin gave his daughter Edith
as the king's wife.

In
1051 England was heading towards a civil war beteween the forces of
the Godwin family on one side and those of King Edward on the other.
One of the key reasons for this was that King Edward had brought
bishops and nobles from the continent, presumably owing to his
childhood exile in Fécamp in Normandy. This was met with
protestations from the native nobles, and it was a particularly grave
matter that the Norman Robert of Jumièges was appointed to the See
of Canterbury. Robert had already served as bishop of London and
during his rule he had established a hostile relationship with the
Godwin family. In the early days of the unrest Robert set out a
rumour that Godwin had authored the death of King Edward's brother,
Alfred, several years earlier. This made matters worse for the Godwin
family and they had to flee into exile. They returned, however,
already in 1052 and made peace with the king. The following year
Godwin himself died from a stroke during the Easter meal of the royal
celebration at Windsor, and this was to have great ramifications of
Harold Godwinson's posthumous reputation, as we shall see.

When
his father died, Earl Harold was the most powerful noble of the
kingdom, and his landed revenue even exceeded that of the king. It is
therefore no wonder that the childless King Edward were to appoint
Harold Godwinson has his successor on his deathbed in January 1066.
Harold's own reign lasted only 10 months, and in October that same
year he died at the Battle of Hastings, allegedly by an arrow through
the eye.

Contemporary likeness of Harold the King

Norman historiography

William
of Jumièges

Christmas
Eve 1066 Duke William became king of a country he had no family bonds
to, and he was well aware of the necessity in establishing his
legitimate right as rule of the English. The key to this problem was
King Edward. In his youth, Edward has been in exile in Normandy and
in the new reign of William it was now purported that Edward, in
gratitude for his Norman lodgings, had promised the throne of England
to the family of Duke William. This claim was first put forth by the
Norman chronicler William of Jumièges in his Gesta
Normannorum Ducum,
which was completed around 1070.

According
to William's chronicle, King Edward had sent the archbishop of
Canterbury, the anti-Godwinist Robert, to William Bastard with the
purpose of appointing him as Edward's heir (1). This claim was also
put forth in the poem Carmen
de Hastingae Proelio,
and the poet even exceeds the chronicler. In the poet it is stated
that not only had King Edward appointed William, but he had done so
with the support of the entire English people. Furthermore, in the
poem Edward - with Robert as his vessel - hands William his ring and
his sword, an investiture episode whose symbolic strength and
importance can not be overestimated (2).

However,
it was an indisputable fact that King Edward had also appointed Earl
Harold as his successor, as testified by a number of contemporary
witnesses, William of Jumièges solved the problem accordingly:
Edward, we are told, asked Harold to swear fealty to William as his
next lord and king. Harold promises to do so and leaves for Normandy
to perform the oath before William the Bastard. On the way he is
captured by a local count, but he is later released from captivity by
Duke William. In other words, not only is Duke William the man
appointed as Harold's future king, he is also his saviour (3).
Consequently, it becomes an even graver matter when Harold later
seizes the throne upon Edward's death. He is both an oath-breaker and
a usurper, and this is why Harold is depicted as dying from an arrow
piercing his eye, for according to contemporary ideas, this was how
oath-breakers died (4). Despite this, however, it is interesting to
note that Harold is in fact labelled as rex
in the Bayeux tapestry.

Harold
dies early in the Battle of Hastings, according to William of
Jumiéges, and many Englishmen were also slaughtered. This was
considered God's punishment for the murder on Alfred, King Edward's
brother. William does indeed go so far as to call Harold "a
traitor like Judas" (5).

Harold swears his oath to William

William
of Poitiers

The
next historiography to be written in the aftermath of the conquest
was the Gesta
Guillelmi
of William of Poitier, also composed around 1070. The narrative
follows the pattern presented in Gesta
Normannorum Ducum,
but William of Poitiers adds a few more details. In his version,
Harold admits to swearing fealty to Duke WIlliam, but that King
Edward passed the lordship of England over to him on Edward's
deathbed, and that Duke William's claim is against English custom.
Duke William is of course offended by this, but he says that he will
let the English people decide, not wishing the English to die as
enemies on account of this disagreement (6). Earl Harold, on the
other hand, ignores this peace offer and leads his army towards
Hastings. Thus, Harold's betrayal becomes even more severe and it is
he who is responsible for sending the English into their death.

It
is nonetheless interesting to note that William of Poitiers treats
Harold with a certain amount of respect. He compares Harold's prowess
in battle with heroes from classical poetry - which in turn serves to
elevate Duke William's own prowess and courage - and the chronicler
states that "we do not revile you, Harold; but we grieve and
mourn for you with the pious victor who weeps over your ruin. You
have reaped the reward that you deserved, and have fallen bathed in
your own blood; you lie in a tumulus on the seashore and will be an
abomintion to future generations of English no less than Normans"
(7). Harold is placed in a tumulus,
a grave for the common folk, in the manner of Pompey as described in
Statius' Thebaid.
Harold thus becomes an epic antagonist who leads his people into
destruction and therefore gets his deserved revenge.

This
was the first stage of the history writing which established Harold
Godwinson's reputation as the great historical antagonist in the game
of England. How many of the English who actually believed in these
historigraphical constructions is impossible to ascertain, but due to
the contemporary understanding of history - where mankind was subject
to the assaults of the Devil in a grand narrative presided over by
God - it was necessary to find an antagonist who could bear the blame
in order to make sense of the punishments meted out by the Divine on
account of the evils of kings and clergy. For instance, in the text
Vita Ædwardi,
King Edward's first biography, it was the clergy and particularly
Archbishop Stigand, who bore the blame for the troubles wrought upon
the English, while the Norman sources move the blame over to Harold.

Later
generations of historiographers also used Harold as the grand
antagonist in the scheme of English history, and if nothing else,
Harold was at least an expedient figure for this matter. Regardless
what the individual chroniclers themselves believed, it was necessary
to explain why God had allowed Duke William - whom many probably
considered a wicked tyrant - to invade and conquer the English. King
Edward's reign was lauded as a golden age of peace contrasted with
the harsh rule of William, and Edward was honoured by both English
and Norman historiographers. Harold, on the other hand, suited both
sides as a historical villain, as shall be seen, both those who saw
things from the Norman perspective and those of the other side.

English historiography

Eadmer
of Canterbury

One
of the voices from the other side was the historian Eadmer of
Canterbury, born shortly after the battle of Hastings and strongly
nostalgic towards the English. In his Historia
Novorum in Anglia
he presents a new twist to the Norman historical fiction. In Eadmer's
rendition Harold is forced by William to yield his lordship by Duke
William during Harold's stay in Normandy, and King Edward later
scolds Harold for thus having brought England into disaster. Eadmer
adds that the Normans claim Harold died because of this broken oath
(8).

The
next important historiographer is William of Malmesbury, who wrote
his Gesta Regum
Anglorum
in the 1120s. He occupies a special place in the historiographical
landscape since he was himself of both Norman and English heritage.
Nonetheless, he unquestionably belongs to the English historians
since he exhibits clear sympathies for the English and laments that
the English culture is losing ground to the culture of the Normans.
William is also interesting because he has a more nuanced view of
King Edward than found in the works of earlier historians.

William
points out that there are various view on how Harold acceded to the
English throne. In his own opus, William seized the crown and uses
here the verb arripere
which may have connotations to thievery or otherwise illegal action
(9). The English, William states, claims that Harold was given the
crown from King Edward, and it is possible that William here also
includes Eadmer of Canterbury, whom he refers to in his introduction.
Despite uncertainty regarding the details, William, too, states that
Harold had promised to give the crown to Duke William and that he
thereby was guilty of oath-breaking. In his summary of the Battle of
Hastings, William points out that Harold deserved his death because
of his faithlessness.

Harold crowned as king. Note the vilified Stigand on his left

Henry
Huntingdon

The
final historiographer in this overview is Henry Huntingdon, who
completed his Historia
Anglorum
in the 1150s. Henry is perhaps that historiographer who passes the
most severe judgement on Harold Godwinsson, and this suggests that
his sources - including his English material - carries a strongly
anti-Godwinist tone.

In
his description of Harold's accession to the throne, Henry applies
the word inuadere,
which points to an aggressive, though not necessarily violent, action
(10). The meaning is nonetheless clear: Harold was a usurper who came
to the throne by means of force rather than law, and this was one of
three reasons Duke William invaded England. The other two reasons
also pertained to the Godwin family.

Henry's
antipathy towards the Godwin family is not, however, most clearly
expressed in his depiction of Harold, but the portrayal of Harold's
father, Godwin. As stated in the introduction, Godwin died from a
stroke during the Easter celebration at Windsor in 1053, and Henry
fused this tradition with William of Jumièges' description of Godwin
as a Judas in a powerful condemnation of Godwin and his family. Henry
was not the first to do this, but it shows how powerful this legacy
was even about a century following Godwin's death.

Henry
tells us that Godwin was anxious to persuade King Edward that he had
nothing to do with the murder of his brother Alfred. During the
Easter meal in 1053, therefore, Godwin says to King Edward that "if
the God of heaven is true and just, may He grant that this little
pice of bread shall not pass my throat if I have ever thought of
betraying you". Henry furthermore states that God heard Godwin's
false words and shortly afterwards Godwin chokes on the piece of
bread and thus "tasted endless death" (11).

This
episode is heavy with symbolism. It is set at Easter, the holiest
time of the Christian year, it takes the form as a Last Supper scene
and Godwin furthermore swears an oath despite Christ's commandment
not to swear. Godwin is thus expressly portrayed as a Judas, and
Harold Godwinson is thereby the son of a Judas which adds further
shame to his own broken oath roughly 13 years later.

The death of Harold

Conclusion

Harold
Godwinson's posthumous reputation was one of the historiographical
legacies of the Norman invasion of 1066 and maintained a strong
position long into later centuries. Harold becomes an antagonist in a
cosmic game which caused the English to be subjected to the Norman
yoke. This is a testamtent to the duration and longevity of literary
legacies and a testamtent to the force of medieval historiography.

Notes

1)
Van Houts 2003: vol. II, 158-59

2)
Barlow 1999: 18. Traditionally, this poem has been attributed to
Bishop Guy de Amiens and dated to c.1067, but later research suggests
it may have been composed as late as c.1125. See Riggs 2006: 16-17.

3) Van Houts 2003: vol. II, 160-61

4) Fleming 2004

5) Van Houts 2003: vol. II, 106-07

6) Davis and Chibnall 1998: 122-23

7) Davis and Chibnall 1998: 140-41

8) Bosanquet 1964: 6-9

9) Mynors et.al. 1998: 416-17

10) Greenway 2007: 384-85

11)
Greenway 2007: 378-79. Interestingly,
Wace's Roman
de Rou comes
closest to ascribing Edward any direct agency. In Godwin's trial by
morsel Edward makes the sign of the cross over it, thus in effect
bringing about Godwin's death (Burgess 2004: line 5456)

Om meg

Norwegian medievalist, bibliophile, lover of art, music and food. This blog is a mixture of things personal and scholarly and it serves as a venue for me to share things I find interesting with likeminded people.